>> Ain't no angels on this list brother
But there is a pin head or two.
Kenneth Waller
- Original Message -
From: "P. J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Camera based SR vs. lens based IS?
> Cotty wrote:
>> On 28/1/07, Mark
>
> I normally carry a camera weighing 24 lbs so to
> me the IS lens is a relief to shoulder about.
and you're also as big as Paul Bunyon...
Cotty wrote:
> On 29/1/07, Tim Øsleby, discombobulated, unleashed:
>
>
>> I'm simply asking
>> for first hand experiences. First hand experiences are a l
Cotty wrote:
> On 28/1/07, Mark Roberts, discombobulated, unleashed:
>
>
>> If you're going to waste your time speculating, do it on a more useful
>> issue like the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin.
>>
>
> Mark!
>
> D'oh!
>
> Ain't no angels on this list brother.
>
>
Seems that's the argument for the much maligned "aperture simulator"...
(heading for the hills now,,,)
George Sinos wrote:
> Just tagging onto the thread here to toss in my two cents.
>
> I guess this is one of those things that is a pretty simple decision
> for me. Even if I had a bag full of e
@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Camera based SR vs. lens based IS?
In a message dated 1/28/2007 4:07:35 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Perhaps I'd better add a few words about why I ask this question.
I've read a review that almost quotes the Canon marketing department on
this
In a message dated 1/28/2007 4:07:35 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Perhaps I'd better add a few words about why I ask this question.
I've read a review that almost quotes the Canon marketing department on this
issue. I'm ok with that, but when the author serves this as
Christian wrote:
>Personally, I use what I got and just try to make pictures.
That's not really in keeping with the spirit of Internet discussion
groups, is it?
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
On 29/1/07, Christian, discombobulated, unleashed:
>Personally, I use what I got and just try to make pictures.
Amen!
--
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
On Jan 29, 2007, at 10:00 AM, Christian wrote:
> ... Personally, I use what I got and just try to make pictures.
:-) Sanity can prevail. :-)
G
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
anuar 2007 19:00
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Camera based SR vs. lens based IS?
Tim Øsleby wrote:
> Perhaps I'd better add a few words about why I ask this question.
> I've read a review that almost quotes the Canon marketing department on
this
> issue. I'm o
Tim Øsleby wrote:
> Perhaps I'd better add a few words about why I ask this question.
> I've read a review that almost quotes the Canon marketing department on this
> issue. I'm ok with that, but when the author serves this as the truth I
> react. So now I have a debate going in a Norwegian forum
>> infinately better at the time, because "in-body" was impossible
>> with film cameras. Cut them a little slack, huh?
>> jco
>>
>> -Original Message-----
>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
>> K.Takeshita
&g
On 29/1/07, Tim Øsleby, discombobulated, unleashed:
>I'm simply asking
>for first hand experiences. First hand experiences are a lot more worth than
>defensive marketing.
I have no experience of in-body SR, and I only have experience of one
lens with in-lens IS (20-200 2.8 L IS). From where I'm
At 11:56 PM 28/01/2007, William Robb wrote:
>There's too many people out there with half assed test benches taking
>pictures of nothing.
There is nothing half assed about my nothing pictures thank you very much.
Dave :-)
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/l
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark
> Roberts
> Sent: 29. januar 2007 00:01
> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> Subject: Re: Camera based SR vs. lens based IS?
>
> Tim Øsleby wrote:
>
> >The market (many at the market) says that camera based SR is best at
> short
>
in Norwegian)
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark
Roberts
Sent: 29. januar 2007 00:01
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Camera based SR vs. lens based IS?
Tim Øsleby wrote:
>The market (many at the market) says that camera
On 28/1/07, Mark Roberts, discombobulated, unleashed:
>If you're going to waste your time speculating, do it on a more useful
>issue like the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin.
Mark!
D'oh!
Ain't no angels on this list brother.
--
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) |
Tim Øsleby wrote:
>The market (many at the market) says that camera based SR is best at
short
>focal lengths, and lens based IS is best at long focal length.
>
>What do you who have used SR for a while say? Truth or myth?
>We have had the theoretical debate, but what does practical use tell us?
> The lens based IS can be fine tuned and specially tailored for the
> given lens. Camera based SR is a general solution. As such it is
Another example of being theoretically/practically better as
in-lens is lens distortion issues. Particularly on wide lenses, be it
barrel distortion on
zero digital bodies to justify
> IS Lens development and production.
> jco
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of
> Adam Maas
> Sent: Sunday, January 28, 2007 3:44 PM
> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> Subject: R
On 29/01/07, George Sinos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Just tagging onto the thread here to toss in my two cents.
>
> I guess this is one of those things that is a pretty simple decision
> for me. Even if I had a bag full of expensive IS lenses I'd want to
> have SR in the body for all of those pl
On 29/01/07, Tim Øsleby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The market (many at the market) says that camera based SR is best at short
> focal lengths, and lens based IS is best at long focal length.
>
> What do you who have used SR for a while say? Truth or myth?
> We have had the theoretical debate, but
Behalf Of
Adam Maas
Sent: Sunday, January 28, 2007 3:44 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Camera based SR vs. lens based IS?
Yep,
because apart from the actually rather expensive 75-300, all those
$5000-$1 IS telephoto's were not extremely expensive, esoteric,
nearly 100% comme
, January 28, 2007 3:03 PM
> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> Subject: Re: Camera based SR vs. lens based IS?
>
>
> Nope,
>
> The first DSLR (Kodak DCS100 based on the F3HP) was introduced
> commercially in 1991.
>
> The first 35mm camera with IS (A Nikon VR P&S,
Yep, you did, and I noticed ;-)
Thank you.
Tim
Mostly harmless (just plain Norwegian)
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Godfrey DiGiorgi
Sent: 28. januar 2007 21:20
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Camera based SR vs. lens based
t: Re: Camera based SR vs. lens based IS?
Nope,
The first DSLR (Kodak DCS100 based on the F3HP) was introduced
commercially in 1991.
The first 35mm camera with IS (A Nikon VR P&S, can't recall the model)
was introduced 3 years later in 1994. Canon IS lenses would show up a
year lat
On Jan 28, 2007, at 11:16 AM, Tim Øsleby wrote:
> Guys. What you say is probably valid, but it is a repetition of the
> theoretical debate. What do you who have tried both in body and in
> lens say
> from a real life point of view?
> Pardon my bluntness. If I had used my own tongue, I could and w
n-body" was impossible
> with film cameras. Cut them a little slack, huh?
> jco
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
> K.Takeshita
> Sent: Sunday, January 28, 2007 9:00 AM
> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>
Just tagging onto the thread here to toss in my two cents.
I guess this is one of those things that is a pretty simple decision
for me. Even if I had a bag full of expensive IS lenses I'd want to
have SR in the body for all of those plain old every day lenses.
If I have SR in the body it works w
plain Norwegian)
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tim
Øsleby
Sent: 28. januar 2007 14:27
To: 'Pentax-Discuss Mail List'
Subject: Camera based SR vs. lens based IS?
The market (many at the market) says that camera based SR is bes
On 1/28/07 1:48 PM, "J. C. O'Connell", <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think you guys are forgetting the fact that Canon introduced
> IS ("in-lenses") long before DSLRs even existed and you cant even
> do "in-body" image stabilization with film cameras. So there
> was NO debate at the time which wa
at the time, because "in-body" was impossible
with film cameras. Cut them a little slack, huh?
jco
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
K.Takeshita
Sent: Sunday, January 28, 2007 9:00 AM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Camera
On Jan 28, 2007, at 7:31 AM, Adam Maas wrote:
I'd like to know which lens based SR lenses there are in the
400-600mm
range.
>>> Canon EF 400 f/2.8L IS
>>> Canon EF 600 f/4L IS
>>
>> A whole two?
>> Gee.
>>
>> William Robb
>>
>
> 4 actually, there's also the 400/4 DO IS USM and th
William Robb wrote:
> - Original Message -
> From: "Godfrey DiGiorgi"
> Subject: Re: Camera based SR vs. lens based IS?
>
>
>
>>> I'd like to know which lens based SR lenses there are in the 400-600mm
>>> range.
>> Canon EF 400
I have to agree with you, sir William ;-).
On 1/28/07, William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The not so nice thing about taking photography away from photographers and
> putting it into the hands of flakes is that the equipment can no longer just
> take pictures.
> There's too many people out
- Original Message -
From: "Tim Øsleby"
Subject: RE: Camera based SR vs. lens based IS?
I don't follow you now. Language barrier?
I was intimating that the best system is the one that exists in usable form.
If you want SR on a 400-600mm lens, you either bust a nut
- Original Message -
From: "Godfrey DiGiorgi"
Subject: Re: Camera based SR vs. lens based IS?
>> I'd like to know which lens based SR lenses there are in the 400-600mm
>> range.
>
> Canon EF 400 f/2.8L IS
> Canon EF 600 f/4L IS
A whole two?
- Original Message -
From: "Boris Liberman"
Subject: Re: Camera based SR vs. lens based IS?
If it ain't broken, don't fix it ;-).
The lens based IS can be fine tuned and specially tailored for the
given lens. Camera based SR is a general solution. As such it is
p
I've had two Panasonics, one Canon with in-lens image stabilization,
and one Konica Minolta, one Pentax with in-body stabilization. With
the Panasonic FZ10, the zoom range was ~35mm to 410mm FoV (35mm
terms); the Canon I had 70-200 and 300mm IS lenses and a 1.4x
teleconverter. With the KM A
If it ain't broken, don't fix it ;-).
The lens based IS can be fine tuned and specially tailored for the
given lens. Camera based SR is a general solution. As such it is
probably more limited. However, you can still mount your K 200/4 and
have SR handily available.
Frankly, I don't care either wa
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
> On Jan 28, 2007, at 6:01 AM, William Robb wrote:
>
>>> The market (many at the market) says that camera based SR is best
>>> at short
>>> focal lengths, and lens based IS is best at long focal length.
>>>
>>> What do you who have used SR for a while say? Truth or myth?
I don't follow you now. Language barrier?
Tim
Mostly harmless (just plain Norwegian)
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
William Robb
Sent: 28. januar 2007 15:01
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Camera based SR vs. lens bas
On Jan 28, 2007, at 6:01 AM, William Robb wrote:
>> The market (many at the market) says that camera based SR is best
>> at short
>> focal lengths, and lens based IS is best at long focal length.
>>
>> What do you who have used SR for a while say? Truth or myth?
>> We have had the theoretical d
- Original Message -
From: "Tim Øsleby"
Subject: Camera based SR vs. lens based IS?
> The market (many at the market) says that camera based SR is best at short
> focal lengths, and lens based IS is best at long focal length.
>
> What do you who have used SR for
On 1/28/07 8:41 AM, "Cory Papenfuss", <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think Canon is going to have to eat their hat WRT in-body SR.
"Rumour" says that's exactly what Canon is contemplating. Who knows? But
it indicates that both methods are toss-up. Canon can no longer charge high
price for IS l
On 1/28/07 8:26 AM, "Tim Øsleby", <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What do you who have used SR for a while say? Truth or myth?
> We have had the theoretical debate, but what does practical use tell us?
I have both. Comparison between CCD shift type and in-lens type is still
being hotly debated ever
> The market (many at the market) says that camera based SR is best at short
> focal lengths, and lens based IS is best at long focal length.
>
> What do you who have used SR for a while say? Truth or myth?
> We have had the theoretical debate, but what does practical use tell us?
>
That s
The market (many at the market) says that camera based SR is best at short
focal lengths, and lens based IS is best at long focal length.
What do you who have used SR for a while say? Truth or myth?
We have had the theoretical debate, but what does practical use tell us?
Tim
Mostly harmless (j
48 matches
Mail list logo
